Can someone translate this for me? It is proving to be quite difficult....

LSATKingsman

PT31.2.10 "Nothing that one should not have desired in the first place fails to be a pleasure"

If I shouldn't have desired it in the first place ----> it is a pleasure?

If I desire it in the first place-----> fails to be a pleasure?

Dear lord this is frustrating haha

nye8870

My successful attempt at solving this question was achieved by assigning simple variables to the larger statements. So I said, “If something is A (justifiably regretted if it had not occurred) then that something is B (a thing I should not have desired in the first place). This made the logical map clear A --> B. Now the conclusion states C (forgone pleasures) some B (a thing I should not have desired in the first place).” So then the task became simple: I need to connect A to C in (at least) a –some- relationship. Prephrase: “Some forgone pleasures –C- are –A- things I would regret had they not occurred” . Answer choice (D) fits like a glove (but uses –many- instead of –some-).

saul.j.slowik

This question really pissed me off. I tried translating the premises using symbols and did not get the same sufficient assumption as the answer choice. Drove me insane.

GrecoRoman

I think it's the first one you did. Nothing would be negate necessary indicator and fails would be a negative. So you'd get "If you should not have desired it in the first place, then it is a pleasure". No one who studies for the LSAT fails to be annoyed by its garbled grammar.